PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS 


BY 

ALBERT GREENE DUNCAN. President, 


Treasurer Harmony Mills, 


77 FRANKLIN STREET, - BOSTON, MASS. 


Delivered Before The National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, 
at their 100th Meeting, in the Copley-Plaza, Boston, Mass, 

April 26th, 1916. 



1016 



••• 


PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS 


BY 


ALBERT GREENE DUNCAN, President, 

u 

Treasurer Harmony Mills, 


77 FRANKLIN STREET, - BOSTON, MASS. 


Delivered Before The National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, 
at their 100th Meeting, in the Copley-Plaza, Boston, Mass. 

April 26th, 1916. 



1916 






j'r' 






t 


f4 


/ 


' i 








.V 

* 

i. 


s 


;, 


.*v'V' ',. 


t 



V- 


9 



<,- I •, 

' •' v 

, ■ ' • ' i 

■ i , '. * 




4 


* \ 


> 




•‘l • 



PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 


Albert Greene Duncan, President, The National Association of Cotton 
Manufacturers, 77 Franklin Street, Boston, Mass. 

At the time of our meeting two years ago,— in April, 1914 ,— 
no one would have ventured to predict that a catastrophe 
was overhanging the world. Humanitarian, economic and 
financial considerations would then have been advanced, show¬ 
ing that a world war was impossible. The outbreak in the 
Balkans seemingly settled, the nations of Europe, after a period 
of strain and tension, had resumed their normal course of life. 

A few short months followed, and prosperous and happy 
Belgium was a scene of desolation and slaughter. France, 
startled from her thrifty pursuit of industry and commerce, 
became a prey to terror and almost disaster. Russia’s vast popu¬ 
lation and most stupendous national resources formed no 
defence from an invader who drove her back from her borders 
amid the ruin and destruction of her fairest provinces. Eng¬ 
land, supposedly secure in her isolation, seeing her dominance 
of the seas and her colonial empire threatened, was forced to 
take a leading part in a contest she could not avert. 

Lack of adequate preparation for emergencies, far from keep¬ 
ing these nations out of a struggle into which many of them 
were loath to enter, made early results most disastrous. As a 
sequence of this world war, we have seen the blasting of Servia 
and Montenegro, the murder of hundreds of thousands of 
Armenians, and the blotting out of Galicia and East Prussia, 
with terrific sufferings to civilian populations who had no part 
or in many cases no knowledge of the struggle. 


4 


How foolish, in view of these awful events, is the self-sufficient 
attitude of America. The early days of the war threatened the 
breaking down of our financial structure. Curtailment of our 
trade followed, caused by the withdrawal of foreign vessels whose 
place our insignificant merchant marine could not supply. We 
suffered a personal loss, as well as in our dignity as a nation, by 
the murder of our fellow-citizens on the Lusitania. As the grip 
ot the warring nations upon each other has become more tena¬ 
cious, we are feeling the restrictions of our shipments to neutral 
nations, and our utter inability to secure many raw materials 
and products needed by our manufacturers. Yet at this day, 
nearly two years after the outbreak of the war, we are still dis¬ 
cussing academically the question of the possibility of our being 
involved, the extent of our needed preparedness, or even the 
necessity of any preparation at all. 

To anyone who will calmly view the history of the past two 
years, the plain lesson is evident, that civilization is but a thin 
veneer over the inherent savagery of mankind ; that neutral 
rights or the rights of civilians have but little weight when 
national policies are at stake, whether these policies be for 
aggrandizement or self-preservation. To the citizens of this 
country, it should be clear that a nation that intends to preserve 
its national life and national ideals inviolate must make adequate 
preparation for its own defence against any emergency, no 
matter how unexpected, or against any attack, no matter how 
unjust and at variance with every policy it has hitherto 
professed. 

This lesson is particularly pertinent to America at the present 
time, for both our business and foreign policies inevitably tend 
to make us enemies rather than friends among the nations of the 
world. Our foreign commerce is openly seeking to capture 
neutral markets from those who formerly held them and are 
prevented from trade owing to exigencies of war. Our neces¬ 
sary policy of neutrality is bound to be misunderstood, and to 
antagonize both parties in the struggle. Further than all, by 
our prosperity, in that we seem to profit from the misfortunes of 


5 


other nations, we invite the envy, the cupidity and the hatred of 
all. 

This is not the time to discuss in detail the question of pre¬ 
paredness. In principle it would seem as if all Americans 
should agree upon the necessity of national defence, but, com¬ 
plicated as this policy is by questions affecting the various parts 
of our country in a different way, it seems desirable to avoid the 
details of preparedness and discuss the fundamental ideas which 
must lie behind any national policy, whether of defence or of 
any other problem affecting our national life. 

A strong national spirit, inspired by a love of country and 
animated by the ideals that have made our country what it is, 
must develop a broad outlook with which national problems 
must be faced. Vaporings of patriotism, jingo enthusiasm, 
pointing to our vast national resources and the willingness of 
millions of Americans to spring to their country’s defence, call¬ 
ing attention in loud tones to our ability in the past to respond 
admirably to every national need, will not suffice. A calm, 
sober realization of what our country means to us is needed. 
A decision as to the lengths we are individually prepared to go, 
in deed as well as in word, is demanded if we would make our 
country the greatest, the readiest, and the sanest country, amid 
the warlike extravagances dominating the rest of the world. 

What does America stand for? We believe it unique among 
the nations of the earth. It was founded on liberty, dedicated 
to the rights of man, and pledged to the principles of humanity. 
Read the Preamble to our Constitution, the Farewell Address of 
Washington, and the Gettysburg Speech of Lincoln,— three great 
documents that embody our national ideal. What has America 
done to justify these expressions, and in what degree has 
accomplishment squared to the hopes of our founders? 

We were the first nation in the world to develop universal 
education as a training for manhood suffrage. Coincident with 
the settlement of our vast area came the planting of the school 
and the college for the training of our citizens. We have, in gen¬ 
eral, abandoned all question of property qualifications and have 


0 


based the right of citizenship only on allegiance to our country 
and an understanding of the principles of our government. 

We have ever held to the doctrine of the greatest good to 
the greatest number consistent with the rights of all, and in 
spite of demagogues’ vaporings on special privilege, one who 
follows the tendencies of legislation in this country must see as 
its underlying motive the uplifting and improvement of the 
average man. We have built new communities of self-govern¬ 
ing citizens, trusting to them the regulation of their local affairs 
with the only limitation that their laws and court decisions 
should conform to the Constitution of our common country. 
We have done this while opening our doors to the immigration 
of the world, and have not feared the issue. 

We have not selfishly held our territory to ourselves, but 
trusted to the ideals of the republic to mold the newcomers of 
every race and nation into real American citizens. In spite of 
all that has been said in the last few months against the attitude 
of certain hyphenated Americans, we have but to point to whole 
communities which, in recent times, as periods run in the life of 
a nation, have been settled largely by races and peoples entirely 
alien to our own, but who, by the influence of the common 
school and the inspiration which a free national life has given, 
have become as loyal Americans as any who can trace descent 
from the founders of our country. 

By the blood and suffering of the great Civil War, the question 
of our nation being an indivisible union, rather than a loose 
confederacy of states, was settled forever, and our welding 
together as citizens of a common nation marked the beginning 
of the era of greatest prosperity to all sections in development 
of resources and growth of population. 

As a united nation, we undertook, for humanity’s sake alone, 
the rescuing of Cuba from plunder and spoliation, without any 
thought of material benefit or territorial aggrandizement, and 
when, in the course of our struggle with Spain, the Philippine 
Islands were thrown as helpless wards upon our hands, we 
extended to them, and to the islands of the Pacific, our ideals of 


7 


education, self-government and liberty, and from us these peoples 
have experienced the only real peace and security they have 
ever known. 

America is founded upon ideals and has lived because of 
them. It stands for something more than the material prosperity 
of its citizens. Its success as a nation is measured by some¬ 
thing else than the yield of its factories, its mines, and its acres, 
or the per capita wealth of its inhabitants. Its national ideal 
cannot be expressed by columns of figures. America stands 
for something higher than cotton or iron or international trade. 
The*people of this country achieved liberty before they acquired 
wealth, they established justice and the rule of law, because they 
believed these to be the foundation of good government, and 
not mere expressions of expediency. 

As citizens of the first and the greatest republic in the world, 
we do not realize our unique position. We do not fully appre¬ 
ciate that citizenship carries with it a higher degree of personal 
responsibility in a republic than in any nation under any other 
form of government. The success or failure of a republic 
depends upon the individual citizen, for with an ever-changing 
personnel in government no continuity of policy is possible 
unless demanded by the electorate. 

The chief peril of democracy is its unadaptability for unified 
thought, and far less for unified action. The public often think 
they see the truth and act from sincere conviction, but many 
times without knowledge or understanding of fundamental facts. 
It is therefore essential that the ideals of our republic be kept 
alive by every citizen as a rallying-point for national unity and 
action, for it is only by the inspiration of a national ideal that 
the divergent forces in a republic can be focussed for the 
common good. 

As the panorama of the world’s history passes before our 
eyes, we see that it has not been wealth, nor commerce, nor 
learning, nor military power, nor any of the other attributes 
which could be particularly applied to any of the great nations 
of the earth, past or present, that has kept them strong. Trade 


8 


routes and material advantages may have helped these nations 
at their origin, but the reason for their continued predomi¬ 
nance and success has been their adherence to a strong and 
worthy national ideal, and when this has gone, decay and dis¬ 
integration have followed with rapid strides. 

A republic having no trappings of sovereignty must hold 
high principle alone as the rallying-point for a strong national 
spirit. We are not an empire or a kingdom, and cannot draw 
from an hereditary monarchy inspiration that really flows from 
national spirit. The constitutional monarchy of England, whose 
citizens are as free as our own, have in the person of their l?ing 
the embodiment of their national ideal and of their history, 
which leads the mind of each citizen back even to medieval 
times, and in giving allegiance to the office of kingship, not to 
the person alone who fills the throne, their thoughts uncon¬ 
sciously crystallize on all that their nation has stood for during 
the centuries of its history. The citizens of Russia in revering 
their Czar, do not regard him as a personality, but as the 
“ Little Father” of his people, and the embodiment not only of 
their national existence but as the head of their organized 
religious belief, Germany, not a nation before 1870, welded 
by the personality of a Bismarck which unified many dis¬ 
cordant states of differing race and religion, has become a 
fatherland to a people who see in the empire the embodiment 
of the national ideal. France, though a republic, is the suc¬ 
cessor to an empire and a kingdom, and has drawn into her 
present form of government much of the inspiration and 
unifying force with which she followed the imperial eagles over 
Europe. 

No better example of this national spirit can be given than 
by an incident at the close of the Franco-Prussian War, when 
P'rance saw herself with a large part of her territory held by an 
invader, her Emperor a captive, her capital in the hands of the 
Commune, and her whole system of government broken. Mar¬ 
shal Bazaine, the commander of the fortress of Metz, surrend¬ 
ered without adequate resistance, and on the restoration of a 


9 


stable government was court-martialed to answer to the manner 
in which he had fulfilled his trust. He pleaded that a large 
part of the army had been routed and captured, that there was 
no settled form of government to whom he could appeal for 
instructions, and he therefore felt that any resistance was 
unnecessary. As he said, “There was nothing left.” The 
answer of the presiding judge will live in history as an 
example of how a national ideal can triumph over any catas¬ 
trophe, however severe. Addressing the accused commander, 
he said, “ But was there not France? ” His question was never 
answered. 

A republic whose citizens lose the conception of the nation 
as an entity and the embodiment of the high ideals and princi¬ 
ples for which it stands, will soon sink to a point where expedi¬ 
ency will replace national honor. Expediency excites no 
inspiration and is not a principle on which a nation can live. 
Expediency dictates the theories of peace at any price. Expe¬ 
diency demands commercial instead of spiritual welfare, and 
may well cause the breakingup of the very foundations of 
government itself. 

The ideal of a government founded on principle is abso¬ 
lutely at variance to the theory that a state exists solely for the 
individual, and that the individual has a claim on his state for 
the protection of his life and property that is not equally bal¬ 
anced by his duty to do his part to keep his nation true to the 
high principles which were the cause for its foundation, and are 
the reason for its continued existence. The theory that a gov¬ 
ernment exists merely as an insurer of real estate titles and a 
protector of material wealth is unutterably opposed to any ideal 
of nationalism, for such protection could exist with equal security 
in a vassal state ruled by an alien nation who had no interest but 
to encourage the tax-paying ability of its inhabitants. 

I feel that, in the last few years, we have failed lamentably in 
this country to put a strong national feeling as the fundamental 
basis of our policy of government. Too often have sectional 
and local considerations been given weight as opposed to a 


10 


national conception. There has been too much legislation for 
selfish ends, and too little national legislation for national 
needs. Our legislators, who are not alone to blame, as they 
but represent the sentiment of their constituents, have too often 
devoted their time and attention to the securing of appropria¬ 
tions for local benefits, to legislation to promote the advantage 
of one section as opposed to another, rather than to adopting a 
broad, constructive and national policy which should regard all 
questions in the light of national concern, and not in the sole 
interest of any one section of our country or of our population. 

While of necessity our citizens, owing to different local envi¬ 
ronments, naturally must approach almost any national question 
from a different point of view, and while there must exist in any 
free form of government political parties with different ideas of 
how the nation’s affairs should be best administered, he is no 
true American, whether he be citizen or legislator, who puts 
personal, sectional or party advantage above national welfare 
and prosperity. 

No better illustration can be given of the failure of our citi¬ 
zens or their legislators to regard our nation’s welfare as a whole, 
than the action of our Congress in the last few months. With 
wars and rumors of wars all around us, with the realization that, 
after the present struggle, the world will never be same again, 
that new alliances will be formed and old ones broken, that the 
warring nations will of necessity be forced to change their 
internal economies and their external policies in order to recoup 
themselves for the enormous expenditures in which they have 
been involved, — with these facts patent to everyone, there has 
been no definite, consistent policy to put this country in an 
adequate state of defence for what may happen at any time, or 
in a condition of industrial preparedness for the trade war bound 
to ensue at the close of the struggle. These great questions 
have been considered purely in the light of local self-interest 
and party advantage, and not in relation to national welfare. 

The war has already shown that, in spite of ample natural 
resources of our own to supply practically every requirement of 


11 


our industries, we are dependent on foreign nations for a large 
number of essential products, notably dyestuffs. Yet, in spite 
of a clear case being made out by our citizens, irrespective of 
party, our legislators have let petty politics intervene, rather 
than regard the needs of their country first and their party 
afterwards. 

With the necessity of large expenditures for preparedness 
admitted, no definite financial policy of^taxation has been ad¬ 
vanced, but an eager search has been made for some new form 
of revenue which will be least antagonistic to the individual 
voter, with the intent to minimize the opposition of taxpayers 
by imposing upon the few the largest part of the burden. In 
any program of such national import, taxation should be borne 
equally, according to his means, by every citizen, as a part of 
the responsibility of his citizenship. This clashing of political 
and personal interest with the interests of the nation as a whole 
is what is making the administration of our government ineffi¬ 
cient and insecure for its citizens. 

The man who thanked God that a naval gun had not yet been 
invented which would shoot from the Atlantic seaboard to the 
Mississippi river was certainly not thinking along national 
lines, nor was the leader of the dominant party in Congress 
regarding all sections of the country with equal solicitude and 
showing a national spirit in tariff legislation when he said, “ We 
in the South intend to make the New England mills come down 
and put their mills there or else go out of business.” Such 
sentiments emphasize the fact that citizens of this country often 
regard sectionalism, individualism and partisanship above 
nationalism. Such sentiments are at the root of much of the 
legislation of which business men in the last few years have had 
reason to complain. We should go back to first principles. We 
should forget our individual, local and partisan prejudices, and 
turn our faces towards the ideal of nationalism, which has been 
our salvation in our government crisis of the past. 

We are in the midst of a crisis today, and possibly one of 
the most far-reaching in its effect upon our national life we 


have ever faced. In spite of our momentary prosperity, in spite 
of our isolation from the struggle which is raging over three- 
quarters of the rest of the globe, we cannot pursue a lofty policy 
of indifference and aloofness to the great questions of national 
and international import which press for settlement. We have 
been forced, in spite of ourselves, into international relations. 
To protect our own financial structure, we have recently been 
obliged, for the first time, to engage, in international finance, 
and such chains of commerce, once forged with other nations, 
cannot easily be broken. We must realize that we can no 
longer consider our own country as a law unto itself, but with 
the dawn of peace must engage in the struggle of nations for 
world trade. We have formed closer bonds with the nations 
to the south of us, and the Monroe Doctrine has changed from 
a measure for our own defence into an added responsibility we 
cannot shirk. 

We can never again avoid world politics, if we would, and in 
entering this broader field of national opportunity we must 
firmly hold the principles for which America has always stood; 
— of peace, “ with charity towards all and malice towards 
none;” — of friendliness to all nations;—of insistence upon 
full protection of American rights; —of determination to 
defend American independence, American territory, and Amer¬ 
ican ideals; —of the rights of humanity; —of the working out 
of the problems of democratic government in the Western 
Hemisphere without outside interference. 

This is true Americanism in external relations, a creed to 
inspire and unite our citizens to the highest endeavor. But we 
cannot exhibit a national spirit in external relations unless 
we vitalize in internal affairs the doctrine of “Americans All,” 
not sectionalists, not partisans, when the national needs of busi¬ 
ness, of defence, of revenue, or of any other problems of coun¬ 
try-wide import demand settlement. For the Government 
means the whole people, with every citizen a sovereign whose 
allegiance can be given only to that which is higher than any 
embodiment of kingship:—A National Ideal, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 028 070 900 1 








